Assessing Patient Progress in Psychological Therapy Through Feedback in Supervision: the MeMOS* Randomized Controlled Trial (*Measuring and Monitoring clinical Outcomes in Supervision: MeMOS).

BACKGROUND: Psychological therapy services are often required to demonstrate their effectiveness and are implementing systematic monitoring of patient progress. A system for measuring patient progress might usefully 'inform supervision' and help patients who are not progressing in therapy. AIMS: To examine if continuous monitoring of patient progress through the supervision process was more effective in improving patient outcomes compared with giving feedback to therapists alone in routine NHS psychological therapy. METHOD: Using a stepped wedge randomized controlled design, continuous feedback on patient progress during therapy was given either to the therapist and supervisor to be discussed in clinical supervison (MeMOS condition) or only given to the therapist (S-Sup condition). If a patient failed to progress in the MeMOS condition, an alert was triggered and sent to both the therapist and supervisor. Outcome measures were completed at beginning of therapy, end of therapy and at 6-month follow-up and session-by-session ratings. RESULTS: No differences in clinical outcomes of patients were found between MeMOS and S-Sup conditions. Patients in the MeMOS condition were rated as improving less, and more ill. They received fewer therapy sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients failed to improve in therapy at some point. Patients' recovery was not affected by feeding back outcomes into the supervision process. Therapists rated patients in the S-Sup condition as improving more and being less ill than patients in MeMOS. Those patients in MeMOS had more complex problems.

Shaping the Effects of Associative Brain Stimulation by Contractions of the Opposite Limb.

There has been an explosion of interest in methods that may promote neural plasticity by indirectly stimulating tissue in damaged brains using transient magnetic fields or weak electrical currents. A major limitation of these approaches is that the induced variations in brain activity tend to be diffuse. Thus far it has proved extremely difficult to target pathways from the brain to specific muscles. This is a particular challenge for applications in rehabilitation. Stroke survivors often exhibit abnormal patterns of muscle activation, including diminished specificity and high levels of co-contraction. For the clinical relevance of brain stimulation to be enhanced, it is desirable that the effects can be restricted to pathways controlling muscles that are the specific targets of movement therapy. We have demonstrated previously that increases in the excitability of corticospinal projections to forearm muscles generated by paired associative stimulation (PAS), are modulated by contractions ipsilateral to the site of the cortical stimulus. The current aim was to determine whether in chronic stroke survivors, simultaneous contractions performed by the non-paretic limb increase the muscle specificity of changes in the excitability of projections to the impaired limb induced by PAS. Ten chronic stroke survivors, 13 age-equivalent and 27 younger healthy controls, completed two separate sessions/conditions. In one (PAS+CONT), isometric wrist flexion contractions of the non-impaired limb were made simultaneously with PAS. In the other (PAS), associative stimulation only was applied. In all groups, PAS alone gave rise to large increases in the excitability of projections to a wrist extensor muscle (extensor carpi radialis - ECR) that was not the target of stimulation. In marked contrast, for the stroke survivors, following combined PAS and flexion contractions of the non-impaired limb, there was no corresponding elevation in the excitability of corticospinal projections to the ECR of the paretic limb. A similar effect was present for the healthy young adults, but not expressed clearly for the age-equivalent controls. The implications of these findings with respect to the clinical deployment of non-invasive brain stimulation in movement rehabilitation are discussed.

The temporal priority principle: at what age does this develop?

The temporal priority principle states that all causes must precede their effects. It is widely assumed that children's causal reasoning is guided by this principle from early in development. However, the empirical studies that have examined children's use of the principle, most of which were conducted some decades ago, in fact show inconsistent findings. Some researchers have argued that 3-year-olds reliably use this principle, whereas others have suggested that it is not until 5 years that children properly grasp the inviolability of the principle. To examine this issue, 100 children, 50 three-year-olds, and 50 four-year-olds, took part in a study in which they had to judge which of two causes yielded an effect. In the task, children saw one event (A), an effect (E), and then another event (B). The events A and B involved the rolling of balls down runways, and the effect E was a Jack-in-a-box popping up. The extent to which E left a visible trace was also varied, because comparisons across previous studies suggested that this may affect performance. As a group, 3- and 4-year-olds performed at above-chance levels, but performance improved with age. The nature of the effect did not have a significant impact on performance. Although some previous studies suggested that 3-year-olds may be more likely to choose B rather than A as a cause due to a recency effect, we found no evidence of this pattern of performance in the younger group. Potential explanations of the age-related improvement in performance are discussed.